coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  In June 1992 eight persons brought a civil action in the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) against the applicant company (then called “Moderni interijeri”), challenging their dismissal from work. The plaintiffs also sought that a preliminary measure be issued.
5.  In its judgment of 21 December 1992 the Zadar Municipal Court granted the claim, but the judgment was quashed by the Zadar District Court (Okružni Sud u Zadru) on 6 October 1993 and the case was remitted to the Zadar Municipal Court.
6.  In the fresh proceedings the Zadar Municipal Court again granted the claim on 27 September 1994. It also granted the requested preliminary measure. On 17 May 1995 the judgment on the merits was reversed in part by the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) and it became final. Furthermore, the decision concerning the preliminary measure was quashed and to that extent the case was remitted to the Zadar Municipal Court for fresh decision.
7.  Both the applicant company and the plaintiffs filed appeals on points of law against the appellate judgment on the merits. In accordance with the applicable procedural rules the appeal shall be lodged with the Municipal Court which conducted the case at the first instance and then forwarded with the case-file, for a decision on the merits, to the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).
8.  After receiving the appeals on points of law the Municipal Court firstly forwarded the case-file to the Supreme Court. However, it was returned to the Municipal Court with an instruction that it first decide on the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary measure. On 20 January 1998 the Municipal Court issued a decision noting that this request had been withdrawn. The case-file was then again forwarded to the Supreme Court.
9.  On 22 November 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals on points of law.
10.  The applicant company then filed a constitutional complaint alleging that the lower courts had erred in their application of relevant laws, that its right to property and free entrepreneurship had been violated. On 29 September 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) dismissed the complaint. The decision was served on the applicant company's representative on 21 October 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Bátonyterenye.
5.  In November 1991 criminal proceedings were instituted against him.
6.  On 18 May 1993 the Balassagyarmat District Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment in the case, which concerned eleven other individuals. The applicant was charged with fraud and two counts of violating foreign exchange regulations.
7.  Between 21 March 1995 and 4 February 2003, the Eger District Court held hearings over 79 days. It heard evidence from several experts and more than 100 witnesses. On the last-mentioned date, it acquitted the applicant.
8.  On appeal by the prosecution, on 11 December 2003 the Heves County Regional Court upheld the applicant's acquittal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 19 May 1997 the applicant's ex-partner filed an action against him, claiming the division of the common ownership of their property. Between 18 December 1997 and 12 June 2001, the Buda Central District Court held numerous hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert.
6.  On 10 October 2002 the court gave a partial decision, holding that the plaintiff had a ¼-share in the parties' flat. This decision was served on the applicant on 27 November 2002.
7.  On 13 December 2002 the applicant filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 6 January 2003 by the District Court for being out of time.
8.  On 28 January 2003 the applicant filed a request for the reinstatement of the proceedings, which was dismissed on 18 March 2003 by the Budapest Regional Court for being out of time.
9.  Subsequently the applicant lodged a request for the re-opening of the proceedings in their previously unsuccessful part.
10.  On 10 September 2003 the District Court suspended the examination of the remainder of the case pending the outcome of the re-opening proceedings.
11.  On 24 February 2004 the request for re-opening was dismissed. On 31 August 2004 the Regional Court rejected the applicant's appeal.
12.  On 10 May 2005 the examination of the remainder of the case was resumed before the District Court. On the same day, the parties concluded an in-court agreement, which was approved and declared final immediately.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 13 June 1996 the applicant was arrested on charges of smuggling. He was detained until 10 June 1997.
6.  On 26 May 1998 the applicant and his 11 accomplices were charged by the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Public Prosecutor's Office with having participated in a gang of smugglers involved in illegally importing merchandise (mainly perfumes and sweets) worth over 100 million Hungarian forints, from Austria to Hungary.
7.  On 17 December 1998 the Customs Authority seized a large amount of merchandise, mainly spirits and cosmetics, held by the applicant.
8.  After having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of experts, on 18 June 2004 the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court held a public hearing, which the applicant's lawyer attended, and discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his accomplices, observing that their conduct was no longer punishable subsequent to Hungary's accession to the European Union. The court ordered that the seized goods should be returned to the applicant. He states, however, that the Customs Authority had meanwhile sold the merchandise. The decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on 8 November 2004.
9.  On 1 April 2005 the applicant filed an action against the State for compensation on account of his pre-trial detention. On 7 June 2005 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the action, in a procedural decision, observing that it had been introduced outside the six-month statutory time-limit which had run from the pronouncement of the final decision on 18 June 2004.
10.  On 24 November 2005 the Budapest Court of Appeal quashed this decision, holding that the applicant's claims had to be examined on their merits.
11.  In the resumed proceedings, on 1 March 2006 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's claims as being statute-barred.
12.  On 26 September 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld this decision. Examining the applicant's claims from the perspective of the Codes of Criminal and Civil Procedure and Articles 5 § 5 and 13 of the Convention, the Court of Appeal was satisfied that the final decision had been pronounced on 18 June 2004 and that the applicant's claims were consequently statute-barred.
13.  On 26 April 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review.
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Tbilisi.
6.  On 8 May 2002 the applicant brought a civil action, claiming back the money which she had lent to a private person on 14 September 1998, further to a note envisaging repayment within two months.
7.  On 22 May 2002 the respondent replied in writing, claiming that she had repaid the debt and that the applicant's action was time-barred under Articles 129 and 130 of the Civil Code (“the CC”).
8.  On 14 June 2002 the Isani-Samgori District Court allowed the applicant's claim at an oral hearing. The court found that the respondent's assertion about payment of the debt was unsubstantiated. It did not reply to the time-bar objection.
9.  On 5 August 2002 the respondent appealed, reiterating, inter alia, that the applicant's action was time-barred.  The latter replied that, in view of the respondent's continuous promises to discharge the debt, she could not have concluded that her rights had been breached between 1998 and 2001.
10.  On 18 September 2002 the Tbilisi Regional Court quashed the judgment of 14 June 2002 and decided the case anew, dismissing the applicant's action as time-barred. The appellate court found that the limitation period had started to run from the date of non-compliance with the note of 14 September 1998, that is two months after the loan, on 14 November 1998. It noted that the case materials did not substantiate the applicant's assertion that the respondent had continuously promised to return the money.
11.  On 16 October 2002 the applicant lodged a cassation claim. Referring to various circumstances of the case, she reiterated that the respondent's verbal assurances had prevented her from applying to the court earlier. She consequently claimed that the appellate court had wrongly applied Articles 129 and 130 of the CC.
12.  On 19 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Georgia declared the applicant's cassation claim admissible but decided to dispense with an oral hearing on the merits. Both parties were informed of that decision on 22 November 2002. On the same day, the cassation claim was forwarded to the respondent for comments. No reply was forthcoming from the latter.
13.  On 6 February 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's cassation claim. Endorsing the facts of the case as established by the appellate court, the cassation court found that the disputed Articles 129 and 130 of the CC had been correctly interpreted and applied in the appellate judgment of 18 September 2002 and that, consequently, there was no ground, under Article 393 §§ 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to quash it.
6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Ştefan Vodă.
7.  In March 1999 the applicant's apartment was burgled. The police caught the burglars and recovered most of the stolen goods, which were deposited at the Ştefan Vodă Police Station as evidence.
8.  In 1999 the applicant's goods were stolen from the police station.
9. On 24 July 2000 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”), seeking compensation for the stolen goods.
10.  By a judgment of 26 September 2003 the Căuşeni District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the Ministry of the Interior to pay her 183,752 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 11,960 euros (EUR) at the time). The judgment was not appealed against and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable. The District Court issued an enforcement warrant which was received by a Bailiff on 5 November 2003.
11.  On 26 April 2004 a Bailiff informed the applicant that on 14 November, 25 November, 8 December 2003 and 20 February 2004 the Ministry had been ordered to comply with the judgment. The Bailiff also informed her that administrative proceedings had been instituted against the Minister of the Interior for non-enforcement of the final judgment in favour of the applicant.
12.  On 27 May 2004 the Ministry informed the applicant that it had not received the enforcement warrant and that the enforcement would be possible only after having received funds for that purpose.
13.  On 29 December 2004 the applicant received MDL 30,993 (EUR 1,825), on 26 January 2005 she received MDL 7,336 (EUR 450) and on 19 September 2005 she received MDL 72,700 (EUR 4,722). On 13 December 2005 the applicant received the last part of the judgment debt of MDL 72,723 (EUR 4,767).
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Kherson.
5.  In April 1997 the applicant instituted criminal proceedings against Mr V.S., accusing him of fraud and forgery. She contended that in 1995 she had prepared a notarially recorded power of attorney in his name with an intention to authorize him to sell her apartment. However, she had not handed the original document to him and left for Russia, where she had worked until 1997. Having returned to Kherson, she had learned that Mr V.S. had sold her apartment to a certain Mr D.D., who had subsequently exchanged it for Mrs L.Ch.'s house.
6.  Subsequently, an expert established that the particular copy of the power of attorney, which had been used by Mr V.S. for concluding the sale agreement, contained the applicant's forged signature.
7.  On 30 April 1997 the criminal proceedings were suspended, as Mr V.S.'s whereabouts were unknown and he was placed on the national “wanted” list.
8.  In April 1997 the applicant also instituted civil proceedings against Mrs L.Ch., Mr D.D., and Mr V.S., claiming restitution of the apartment.
9.  On 30 June 1997 the Suvorovsky District Court of Kherson (Суворовський районний суд м. Херсона) allowed the applicant's claim. This judgment became final.
10.  On 28 November 1997 the Presidium of the Kherson Regional Court (“the Regional Court”; Херсонський обласний суд)[1] quashed the judgment of 30 June 1997 following a supervisory protest of the Deputy Regional Prosecutor and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
11.  On 30 August 2000 Mr D.D. and Mrs L.Ch. lodged a counterclaim, maintaining that Mr V.S. had been duly authorized to sell the apartment.
12.  On 5 September 2000 the Suvorovsky Court dismissed the applicant's claim and allowed the counterclaim. It recalled that the applicant had not officially revoked the authorization to sell her apartment, which had remained on the notary register, and so the forgery of a particular copy of the power of attorney had not made the sales agreement null and void. This judgment became final.
13.  On 18 December 2000 the Regional Court quashed this judgment following a supervisory protest introduced by the Deputy Regional Prosecutor and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
14.  On 15 November 2002 the Suvorovsky Court dismissed the applicant's claim and allowed the counterclaim, having found that it could not invalidate the sales agreement solely on the basis of an expert opinion that a copy of the power of attorney had been forged. The applicant appealed pursuant a newly introduced appeal procedure.
15.  On 5 March 2003 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. On 17 March 2003 the applicant appealed in cassation.
16.  On 19 November 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation.
17.  In the course of the proceedings, the first-instance court scheduled some fifty hearings. Some twenty of them were adjourned on account of the defendants' absences. Some seven adjournments were attributable to the applicant's absences or her requests for adjournments. Four hearings were adjourned on account of both parties' absence.
5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Celje.
6.  On 12 January 1997 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 24 September 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 5,887,277 Slovenian tolars (approximately 24,500 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 18 February 1998 and 27 September 1999 the applicant made five requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Between 4 September 1998 and 19 September 2000 he lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Three hearings were held between 15 February 2000 and 26 October 2000.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last-mentioned hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 21 December 2000.
8.  On 3 January 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 4 July 2001 the court dismissed both appeals.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 3 October 2001.
9.  On 2 November 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). The applicant also made a request for the withdrawal of one of the judges.
On 25 February 2002 the president of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request for the withdrawal.
On 11 December 2002 the court allowed the applicant's appeal on points of law in part and increased the amount of the damages awarded. The judgment was served on the applicant on 30 January 2003.
5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Celje.
6.  On 13 October 1994 the applicant was severely injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 2 June 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 11,306,960 Slovenian tolars (approximately 47,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 22 July 1998 and 21 November 2000 the applicant lodged seven preliminary written submissions.
He made two requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Four hearings were held between 5 October 1998 and 8 January 2001.
During the proceedings the court appointed three experts. The court also sought an additional opinion from one of the appointed experts.
At the last-mentioned hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 9 April 2001.
8.  On 19 April 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 26 June 2002 the court upheld ZT's appeal in part and reduced the procedural costs which had been awarded.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 28 August 2002.
9.  On 20 September 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 22 January 2004 the court dismissed the applicant's appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 17 February 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Stryy, the Lviv region. She is a former director of a municipal preschool educational establishment (“the Establishment,” Дитяча дошкільна установа №1 санаторного типу).
5.  In May 1996 the applicant was dismissed, following the City Council's (Стрийська Рада народних депутатів Львівської області) decision to liquidate the Establishment.
6.  In June 1996 the applicant lodged a civil action against the Municipal Education Department (Відділ освіти виконавчого комітету Стрийської міської ради), seeking her reinstatement and compensation for unlawful dismissal. Subsequently, the applicant also challenged the legality of the decision to liquidate the Establishment. The Drogobych Court (Дрогобичський міський суд Львівської області) decided to examine the two complaints jointly and held some three hearings before September 1997.
7.  No procedural actions are reported to have taken place between September 1997 and December 2000.
8.  Between December 2000 and October 2001 the court scheduled some seven hearings, one of them having been adjourned on account of the applicant's absence, and two – on account of the absence of the defendant.
9.  On 12 October 2001 the court dismissed the applicant's claims, having found that the liquidation of the Establishment and the applicant's dismissal had been carried out in compliance with applicable law.
10.  On 12 November 2001 the applicant appealed.
11.  On 11 March 2002 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Львівської області) upheld the judgment of 12 October 2001.
12.  On 6 June 2002 the applicant appealed in cassation.
13.  On 14 February 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation.
5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Celje.
6.  On 2 July 1995 the applicant was injured in a car accident. She had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  The applicant and ZT agreed on the appointment of a medical expert to assess the extent of the applicant's injuries. The appointed medical expert established that the applicant had sustained 45 per cent permanent invalidity as a result of the accident. ZT paid the applicant damages corresponding to 35 per cent of the invalidity level.
8.  On 13 October 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) seeking payment of damages corresponding to the unpaid 10 per cent of the invalidity level in the amount of 677,040 Slovenian tolars (approximately 2,800 euros).
Between 20 October 1999 and 30 August 2002 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions.
On 20 October 1999 she also made a request that a date be set for a hearing.
Three hearings were held between 4 June 2001 and 18 September 2002.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.
At the last-mentioned hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim, was served on the applicant on 30 December 2002.
9.  On an unspecified date ZT appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).
On 18 March 2004 the court dismissed ZT's appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant on 28 April 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Bijela Brda.
5.  On 9 April 1984 the applicant brought a civil action in the Beograd Third Municipal Court against a certain N.D., seeking repayment of a loan.
6.  Having heard the applicant in person at a hearing on 20 June 2002, on 5 November 2002 the court gave a judgment accepting the applicant's claim. On 26 November 2003 the Beograd District Court quashed that judgment for factual shortcomings and remitted the case. In its decision, the District Court instructed the first-instance court to hear and confront the parties, as well as to hear the other witnesses proposed by the applicant with a view to establishing, inter alia, whether the loan had been made to N.D. or to his father, whether a part of it had in the meantime been repaid and whether the claim was time-barred.
7.  In the resumed proceedings, the court held a hearing on 16 November 2004, which the applicant did not attend although duly summoned. On that occasion, his lawyer informed the court that the applicant was in poor health and needed surgery. Therefore, the applicant would not be able to attend court hearings, but maintained all his claims, as previously stated in his oral and written submissions to the court.
8.  On 1 April 2005 the applicant submitted a medical certificate, stating that he suffered from paranoid psychosis with signs of hypochondria, and that he was unable to attend court hearings.
9.  The court appears to have held further hearings on 17 June and 7 October 2005, both attended by the applicant's lawyer. It also obtained an expert opinion on 27 May 2005.
10.  The court subsequently ordered the applicant's lawyer to inform it of the exact date and place where the applicant would be medically treated. It further contacted the medical institution which had issued the certificate of 1 April 2005, requesting its opinion on whether the applicant's health allowed him to be a party to the proceedings. It would appear that none of the court orders has ever been complied with.
11.  At the hearing held on 26 September 2006 the applicant's lawyer specified the claim, whereas the respondent submitted that, if the applicant was ill, the court could not continue the proceedings.
12.  The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Budapest.
5.  In a real estate dispute, on 2 January 1996 Mr B. brought an action against the applicant.
6.  Between 23 April 1996 and 5 July 2001, the Budapest II/III District Court held altogether 14 hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert.
7.  At the hearing of 9 October 2001 the respondent introduced his counter-claim, claiming the division of common property. Further hearings took place on 7 March and 11 June 2002.
8.  From 4 February 2004 the case was stayed pending the parties' attempt to reach an agreement.
9.  Further hearings were held on 21 June, 28 September and 3 December 2004. On the latter date the case was again stayed at the parties' request.
10.  The parties requested the resumption of the proceedings on 6 June 2005, a stay on 18 July 2005, and the scheduling of a hearing on 5 January 2006. However, since they did not appear at the hearing on 9 March 2006, the case was again stayed. After the expiry of the statutory six-month time-limit, the case ceased to exist on 9 September 2006.